Monday, October 08, 2012

The Hindu/Footloose/Dance Criticism

Dance journalism in
India leaves much to be desired. Dance is rarely spoken or written about in the
media, and when it is, it is often uneducated, badly researched and
uninteresting to read. The rare writings on dance mostly take the form of
reviews of performances. Dancers use these critiques to legitimize their work.
Only a handful of critics are around to validate or discredit the work of
thousands of dancers. Herein lies the first problem. Dance criticism is dying
in India. There simply aren’t enough critics to review the work of a growing
number of performers. Moreover, because of the lack of critics, the few
who exist are placed on a pedestal and become unquestionable. The lack of a
space for communication and dialogue between the dancer and critic make the
reviews, once published – indisputable. There is no room for the critic to
clarify any doubts before printing their reviews, and no space for a dancer to
respond to this critique in as public a space as the one in which the review
appears. This creates mistrust between the dancer and critic.

Secondly, the nature
of these reviews have come under scrutiny in the past (see Sadanand Menon’s
article in 1984 titled ‘Those large liquid eyes’) and today’s reviews also
largely leave many questioning the validity and legitimacy of the critics. This
might be so because the relationship between the dancer and the critic is not
of mutual understanding and learning, as it should be. In my view, the job of
the dancer is to communicate his or her idea through her dance. In turn, the
critic’s job is to constructively guide a dancer with his or her critique.
Sometimes, however, a review leaves a dancer feeling demoralized and perplexed.

At a very basic level,
the mistrust is further fuelled by badly conducted research. Last year, a
newspaper article that was covering Mandeep Raikhy’s ‘Inhabited Geometry’ read
that its choreographer was Desmond Roberts, who was in fact, the photographer
whose photograph was enclosed in the article. Another review wrote off a
choreographer as German, when in fact, he was an Indian dancer who had trained
in Austria. In yet another article, a Bharatanatyam dancer was said to be a
Kalakshetra graduate. In reality, she was trained in Delhi in the Kalakshetrastyle.Poor research and lack of attention to detail
then must be a reason for this mistrust.

Another reason for
this mistrust is the regurgitation of ‘programme notes’ and passing this off as
a critique. Descriptive rather than analytical pieces of writing betray a
reluctance to scrutinize and appreciate the dancer’s work. Reviews often use
most of the space available to describe the ambience, the nature of the
audience and the general atmosphere rather than the dance itself.

Finally, some critics
make sweeping statements which often contradict themselves. One review
mentioned that the ‘charismatic’ dancer ‘lacked energy and emotion’ and then
went on to say that the dancer performed abhinaya ‘in a captivating manner’. In
making such a contradictory statement, it is imperative to explain how a
‘charismatic’ dancer lacked ‘energy’ and how it came to be that a dancer who
‘lacked emotion’ was able to perform abhinaya ‘in a captivating manner’.
Otherwise, the critique is meaningless and vexing!

To conclude, it is
absolutely vital that we find some way to arouse the interest of young
journalists to write about dance, and train them in a proper manner. Further,
those that take this up as a profession must be more careful and responsible
when critiquing work, keeping in mind their main purpose – to constructively
and objectively critique work.

Dance criticism
needs an overhaul, without which this relationship between the dancer and
critic may fall apart completely. This is alarming, because dance criticism is
a lively and integral part of the dance world. A good system of criticism keeps
dancers on their toes. It also informs the larger world about new work being
created in the dance world everyday. Finally, it opens up the possibility for
dialogue between the performers and spectators – something that brings the art
and artist closer to the people. We need this overhaul now – because good
critics are crucial to an intelligent and responsive dance community.

When Dance Criticism is Constructive...

My previous article on criticism
led to some speculation on what exactly constructive criticism is. Did the term
imply that the critic’s role is to always praise the dancer? Is constructive
criticism by a critic meant to help the dancer?

The answer to the first question
is a definite ‘no’. Constructive criticism does not imply praise. The very fact
that the word ‘criticism’ appears in that phrase implies that it is distinct
from unconditional praise. The critics’ role is definitely not to always praise
the dancer, and certainly not if it is undeserved. A critic’s job is to
critically observe and comment on a piece of work. This may involve praise, but
equally it may not. That really depends on the quality of work being critiqued
and the detail with which a critic scrutinizes a piece of work.

The answer to the second question
is a bit more complex. It begs further questions regarding what it means to
‘help’ a dancer. If the second question is linked with the first, then this
kind of ‘help’ (undeserved and unrelenting praise) is, as I mentioned earlier,
not the critic’s job. But constructively criticizing the work of a dancer is helpful to a dancer in that it
inevitably points out what isn’t working in the piece. So in that sense, the
critic’s role does lend a helpful hand to the dancer by constructively
commenting on his or her work.

At this point, it becomes crucial
to explain what I mean by ‘constructive criticism’. Constructive criticism is
compatible with honest, hard criticism. A poor piece of choreography must be
reviewed as so, but it will be a comprehensive critique only if the reasons for
why this choreography is poor are
made clear. In such an instance, it not only informs the readers about the work
but also lets the choreographer know what went wrong. This is crucial for a
responsive relationship that a dancer and a critic ideally share.

An article in the New York times
mentioned that what we need are “more authoritative and punishing critics –
perceptive enough to single out the voices that matter for legitimate praise,
abusive enough to remind us that not everyone gets, or deserves, a gold star”.
It goes on to say that criticism is about “making fine distinctions” and
involves “talking about ideas, aesthetics and morality as if they matter”.
This, to me, is constructive criticism. So, reviews that are detailed descriptions
of events cannot do justice to this kind of critique that is crucially needed
in the world of Indian dance.

Constructive criticism is so much
deeper than the largely descriptive critiques we often see today.
Constructively criticizing a dance piece must involve engaging with the ideas
that are being put forth by the choreographer. It must involve an informed analysis
of movement and whether or not it connects conceptually to what the dancers
dance on stage. I also believe that the critic’s personal voice should be more
prominent, since it is his or her valued opinion that is appearing in print. As
a reader of the review, it is interesting to know whether the conceptual ideas
of the choreographer were translated capably into movement. As a choreographer
and a dancer, this is not only interesting but also helpful. If it did, then
the critique must legitimately involve praise, but if it did not, the critic
must feel free to criticize the work. The artists are then informed that their
ideas did not translate. This can seem hurtful and harsh, but again necessary
for a responsive dance community and a thriving relationship between the critic
and artist.

In turn, and this should not be
taken lightly either, the dancers and choreographers must value this
constructive critique, regardless of whether it praises or harshly criticizing
them. Constructive criticism has no ulterior motives and therefore no
imaginable reason for criticizing dancers unnecessarily. So, just as dancers
shouldn’t be subjected to undeserved praise or criticism, a constructive critique
must not be dismissed by dancers. It is in the interest of dancers to take such
critique seriously.

As a dance community, we must
collectively end the circle of mistrust. The parallel but destructive ideas
coming from both dancers (“Why should we take their critique seriously? It’s
descriptive, lacks analysis of any kind – praise or criticism”) and critics
(“Dancers never take criticism seriously anyway”) can be a never-ending
merry-go-round. A resolute decision has to be made by both to trust each other
more. A change in the way reviews are written might reflect a change in the dancers’
perception of reviews. Further, a resolve to seriously internalize and
appreciate legitimate critique by dancers might improve the way reviews are
written. It will undoubtedly be a slow process. Mistrust takes a while to
disappear. But if constructive critique becomes the norm, and dancers begin to
appreciate the laborious work of critics who put this effort into writing
reviews, this mistrust will slowly but surely
evaporate into thin air.

About Me

I am a dancer. I write about what I feel are pressing issues concerning dance in India, and what my hopes and concerns as a young dancer in India are. I also seek answers to questions that I feel need to be asked, and need to be answered. I write about things that trouble and move me as a dancer. The facts in my writing are corraborated by academic material published (where I have used other people's work, it is appropriately cited) and the rest are my personal opinion. If you would like to use any of my written material, please email me at aranyanibhargav@gmail.com. Thank you.